Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Godin to authors: You have no right to make money any more

Godin to authors: You have no right to make money any more:


Thanks to the rise self-publishing tools, from Amazon’s Kindle platform to Apple’s iAuthor software, anyone who wants to write a book can do so and theoretically reach an audience of millions — as self-publishing superstars such as Amanda Hocking and John Locke have shown. But this explosion of amateur authors and publishers also means a lot more competition for an audience. So how do writers make money? First of all, according to author and marketer Seth Godin, they have to give up the idea that they somehow deserve to be paid for their writing.


In a recent interview with Digital Book World, the writer and creator of the Domino Project — a joint publishing venture with Amazon that he recently wound up — was asked about his advice that authors should give their books away for free, and that they should worry more about spreading their message and building a fan base instead of focusing on how to monetize it right away. And how would he respond to writers concerned about their ability to make a living from their writing? Godin’s response:


Who said you have a right to cash money from writing? Poets don’t get paid (often), but there’s no poetry shortage. The future is going to be filled with amateurs, and the truly talented and persistent will make a great living. But the days of journeyman writers who make a good living by the word — over.


The rise of the amateur has disrupted all forms of content


This probably isn’t the kind of message that most authors (or creative professionals of any kind) want to hear, but that doesn’t make it any less true. The rise of the amateur, powered by the democratization of distribution provided by the web and social media, is something that is disrupting virtually every form of content that can be converted into bits. To take just two examples, the news industry is struggling to adapt to an era where anyone can commit “random acts of journalism” with a blog or smartphone — and where sources of news have the ability to publish their own content instead of having to go through a middleman — and photography has been battling the rise of the amateur for years now.



The crucial principle at work in all of these areas is the idea that your real competition isn’t the book or news outlet that is better than you, it’s the one that is good enough for a majority of your audience. So maybe the Huffington Post version of that news story isn’t as good as the one in the New York Times — but it is good enough for many readers. And maybe those vampire books by Amanda Hocking or the detective novels from million-selling author John Locke aren’t as good as yours, but for hundreds of thousands of weekend readers they are probably good enough. Godin’s point isn’t that you can’t make money, it’s that you have to think differently about how to accomplish it.


If you’re a mystery writer, can you find 1000 true fans to pay a hundred dollars a year each to get an ongoing serial from you? It’s not the market’s job to tell authors how to monetize their work. The market doesn’t care. If there’s no scarcity of what they want, it’s hard to get them to pay for it.


Who says that artists have a right to make money?


Fim director Francis Ford Coppola said something similar in a recent interview, in which he discussed some of the lessons he had learned over decades of practicing his craft, but also talked about how the internet — and specifically the widespread downloading of music and movies — has changed the nature of the business. Somewhat surprisingly for someone who has been involved in creating some of Hollywood’s biggest commercial successes, Coppola said that he sympathized more with those doing the downloading than he did with the content creators whose work was being affected:


As we enter into a new age, maybe art will be free. Maybe the students are right. They should be able to download music and movies. I’m going to be shot for saying this. But who said art has to cost money? And therefore, who says artists have to make money?


As media theorist Clay Shirky has pointed out before, abundance breaks a lot of content-related business models that were built on scarcity, and that includes the ones that have supported the book-publishing industry for so long. That’s why publishers have been scrambling to try and lock down their content — including jacking up the prices that libraries pay for e-books — and it’s why authors who have a built-in audience are using the web to connect directly with that audience. Godin’s message may not be a popular one, but it is the way that content works now.


Post and thumbnail images courtesy of Flickr users Joel Bombardier and Mike Licht


Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.








Senator Brown: The time to act on crowdfunding bill is now

Senator Brown: The time to act on crowdfunding bill is now:

On Monday Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown (R) urged a Boston audience to pressure his Senate colleagues to bring his crowdfunding bill – or any crowdfunding bill for that matter—to a vote soon. The Senate Banking Committee will hold a hearing on the issue on Tuesday.


The general idea behind the proposed legislation is to make it legal for individual investors to put some money — up to $1,000 or $10,000 depending on the bill — into startups in return for equity. Crowdfunding is the “crowdsourcing” take on start-up funding.


“I don’t own this idea. There are other bills, bring them to the floor so we can tweak and work on them,” Brown told a roomful of entrepreneurs and reporters in South Boston. The House of Representatives has already passed a similar bill sponsored by Congressman Patrick McHenry (R-NC).


Brown’s proposed “Democratizating Access to Capital Act” would make it easier for startups to raise capital in small increments from investors. The current crowdsourcing models — like Kickstarter — let people invest in interesting startups, but they get gifts and products — not stock equity — for their money. Brown’s bill would cap each investment at $1,000 while McHenry’s bill has a $10,000 limit. Brown’s also would mandate that an intermediary handle deal flow and provide some oversight. McHenry, talking to the Boston group via Skype, said he worried that would stifle deals. President Barack Obama supports the idea of a crowdsourcing bill.


Backers of this legislation maintain that the inability for small companies to raise capital hurts innovation and job growth. ”You can’t go to the bank with an idea and get financing but if you go to the bank with an idea plus $1 million, the bank will listen,” Brown said. Many of these startups are too small to attract even angel investors, let alone venture capital.


Speakers at the event, held at the Mass Challenge office in South Boston, were preaching to the choir, an assembly of entrepreneurs almost all of whom would love to be able to raise money from small investors.


Amy Cortese, a proponent of local investing, said the slate of security laws discriminates against the non-wealthy. “The thing about the 1930s securities laws is they created two tiers [of investors]. Those with a net worth of $1 million can invest in anything — the sky’s the limit — but ordinary Americans have to invest in public companies. There is some irony that we have to invest in the stock market for safety.”


A crowdsourcing bill would make it easier for friends and family to invest in startups, but it is not exclusive to them. Financial giants could take advantage of it as well.


Proponents said eBay has proven there is crowdsourced protection inherent in the Web world. “Reputation ranking helps you know who’s trustworthy and who isn’t. There is sunshine from these systems and the flow of data through social networks lets us transact with people we’ve never met and probably never will meet,” said Tim Rowe, the founder of the Cambridge Innovation Center, who spoke at Monday’s event and will testify tomorrow in Washington, D.C.


Obstacles remain. State financial regulators oppose the bill because it would cut filing fees they now collect. And it is unlikely that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which has trouble enforcing existing regulations, would be able to handle an influx of many smaller entities and deals. Brown acknowledged there are many wrinkles to iron out. “As with anything, the devil’s in the details,” he said.


Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.








DARPA's robotic cheetah sets a land speed record racing into your nightmares (video)

DARPA's robotic cheetah sets a land speed record racing into your nightmares (video):
DARPA Robotic Cheetah

Sleep tight.

Continue reading DARPA's robotic cheetah sets a land speed record racing into your nightmares (video)

DARPA's robotic cheetah sets a land speed record racing into your nightmares (video) originally appeared on Engadget on Mon, 05 Mar 2012 13:41:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | sourceWired | Email this | Comments

Sunday, March 4, 2012

Pair Programming Considered Harmful?

Pair Programming Considered Harmful?: pair-programming

“We have trained, hired, and rewarded people to be cowboys. But it’s pit crews that we need,” said Atul Gawande — a surgeon and Harvard professor who writes for The New Yorker in his copious spare time — in a recent TED talk. He was talking about doctors, but what tech profession might fit that description as well? Yes, that’s right. You there, huddled over the IDEs on your MacBook Pros. Step forward, software developers.


Coding has always been seen as lone-ranger work; witness the opening scene in The Social Network. Despite managers’ dreams of programmers as fungible units, it’s nearly universally accepted that a great developer is ten times as productive as a mediocre one, and/or that a small team of the software equivalent of the Special Forces can code rings around an army of hundreds of grunts. The flip side is that one cowboy coder’s bad decisions can cripple you — maybe immediately, or maybe next year, when you suddenly discover that your organization has quietly racked up so much technical debt that it has become the software equivalent of Greece.


There are various ways to try to mitigate this risk. One of the more extreme calls for all development to be performed by pairs of programmers: two coders at one keyboard, at all times, with almost no exceptions. The idea (to oversimplify a bit) is that a second mind will sanity-check every bad idea and support every good one, so you — counterintuitively — wind up with higher per-programmer productivity. Legendary development shops like San Francisco’s Pivotal Labs and Toronto’s Xtreme Labs(1) have adopted a 100 percent pair programming mindset, with considerable success.


Great! Problem solved, right?


…Not so fast.


“Research strongly suggests that people are more creative when they enjoy privacy and freedom from interruption … What distinguished programmers at the top-performing companies wasn’t greater experience or better pay. It was how much privacy, personal workspace and freedom from interruption they enjoyed,” says a New York Times article castigating “the new groupthink.” It also quotes Steve Wozniak:


“Work alone… Not on a committee. Not on a team.”


Open-plan offices, in particular, seem an impressively terrible idea. “Open plan layouts create massive distraction, damaging productivity,” according to a recent analysis by the U.K.’s Channel 4. See also the related Hacker News commentary, which includes gems like “Most modern office layouts seem to be designed to screw with people’s fight or flight instincts all day,” and “I’m a quiet type, and I often need time alone to think and write code and documentation. The ‘rah rah’ social types railroaded us … I am becoming bitter and resentful.”


Solitude seems to be essential for creativity: but paired programmers have no on-the-job solitude, ever. Does that matter? After all, it’s “just programming,” right? It’s not an art form. It’s barely even a craft. It’s certainly not creative. Just ask anyone who isn’t very good at it.


Sorry. No. I’ve been writing code for twenty years, and I’ve had half-a-dozen novels published, and I can assure you that there are far more similarities between those two fields than most people realize. In fact, I use the same analogy for both: carpentry. All three are crafts wherein considerable mechanical skill is required before you can add creative flourishes — but that creativity is essential to the end quality of what you’re building.


I’m not saying programming ever rises to an art. There are no software equivalents of Atwood or Marquez or McCarthy out there. But there are many programmers who have done extraordinary work on their own: Marco Arment of Instapaper, Gabriel Weinberg of DuckDuckGo, Notch of Minecraft. Would they really have benefited from pair programming?


…Maybe.


A recent Jonah Lehrer New Yorker piece reveals: “Decades of research have consistently shown that brainstorming groups think of far fewer ideas than the same number of people who work alone and later pool their ideas.” Aha! Further proof that working alone is the answer, right? But it goes on to mention something more interesting and more subtle:


Pairs of subjects were shown a series of color slides in various shades of blue and asked to identify the colors. Sometimes one of the pair was actually a lab assistant instructed by Nemeth to provide a wrong answer. After a few minutes, the pairs were asked to free-associate about the colors they had seen. People who had been exposed to inaccurate descriptions came up with associations that were far more original.


Working alone is good for creativity — but being paired with someone who thinks differently from you can lead to more creativity yet. So should your takeaway here be that pairing is the answer after all?


No, no, hell no. The true answer is that there is no one answer; that what works best is a dynamic combination of solitary, pair, and group work, depending on the context, using your best judgement. Paired programming definitely has its place. (Betteridge’s Law strikes again!) In some cases that place may even be “much of most days.” But insisting on 100 percent pairing is mindless dogma, and like all mindless dogma, ultimately counterproductive.


My own preference is a development environment where every feature/module/story has two programmers assigned to it, one “primary” and one “secondary.” (Terminology shamelessly stolen from Homicide/The Wire.) Each developer is primary on one feature and secondary on another. They pair-program from time to time, especially in the beginning, but in general the primary does most of the work, while the secondary spends an hour or two each day sanity-checking the primary’s code and building bite-sized subsections.


Alas, I’ve only worked like this a couple of times in all my decades of development. Those have been the most productive projects I’ve ever worked on…but that’s an extremely small sample size. Further research, as they always say, is needed. In the interim, I’ll leave you with one last quote from that Hacker News discussion:


“Yes, communal areas for some type of work/communication, private areas for others. It’s staggeringly obvious that this meets everyone’s needs … but I’ve found very few places offer anything remotely similar.”


Image credit: Esti Alvarez, Flickr.


(1)Disclosure/disclaimer; I did a few months of contract work at Xtreme early last year.





Friday, March 2, 2012

Cyborg anthropologist’s startup brings people & computers closer together

Cyborg anthropologist’s startup brings people & computers closer together:


Longtime cyborg anthropologist Amber Case has spent the better part of a the past several years researching how people connect to computers; now, she’s launching a startup to make those connections more seamless than ever.


“I’ve been talking about the history of mobile and computers and the increasing connectivity between technology and human beings,” Case told VentureBeat in a recent phone call. “But people still weren’t building the solutions for real-life problem-solving in these sectors.”


Case saw a huge technology gap (and a corresponding huge opportunity) in the areas of location and proximity. “Location is an invisible interface,” she told us, “and I wanted to build something to bring that to life.”


Case’s new company is Geoloqi — pronounced “geo-low-key,” because it’s intended to be easy to use. With this startup, she told us, “I’m taking what I’ve learned in cyborg anthropology and applying that directly.”


The Geoloqi platform is device agnostic, language agnostic, location-source agnostic and carrier agnostic. It gives devs a complete location toolkit (which includes geofencing), battery management features (long a stumbling block for GPS-heavy apps), and real-time data storage and analytics.


The startup has been the buzz of the Internet for a couple months, but today marks its official launch as well as the availability of its fully agnostic SDK for iOS and Android, as well as its proprietary API.


Case describes Geoloqi as a complete stack of geolocation tools that allows developers to unlock the full potential of real-time, location-based services.


We asked Case about similar toolkits such as those from NeuAer or SimpleGeo (which was recently acquired by Urban Airship). “SimpleGeo never had persistent background GPS or true location-based analytics or true geofencing,” said Case, “and I think people really wanted those. There was this missing piece that needed to be there in location.”


Case’s missing link is currently aimed mostly at large enterprises and government organizations.


“You can send an alert to everyone in a certain location if there’s an emergency,” Case offered as an example of how Geoloqi could be used. “A security team could use it to track and communicate with each other. You can request a cab and watch it arrive in real time. You can use it to limit access to files based on location, such as only letting someone access a file if you’re at your headquarters.”


Case said the technology could also be used for home automation.


Currently, some of Geoloqi’s customers military/security customers are using the platform for personnel recovery. “When they’re deployed, they need to make sure they’re safe,” Case explained. “If there’s a sniper, they can draw a geofence. And if someone is within that boundary, they get an alert.”


Geoloqi has a long queue of would-be customers in the retail, government, and security verticals, but Case couldn’t reveal the exact number of clients when we spoke. Currently, the startup has six full-time staffers and is recruiting heavily.


“We’ve raised $350,000, and although we’re making a good chunk of revenue … we’re poised to grow very quickly,” said Case, adding that future, larger rounds of venture capital are definitely “a possibility.”


Also, Case and team are engineering strategic partnerships to bring their product to other verticals such as healthcare — which in turn would add up to more revenue for the young startup.



Filed under: VentureBeat



Robot Quadrotors Perform James Bond Them

Robot Quadrotors Perform James Bond Them:

Robot Quadrotors Perform James Bond Theme – YouTube.





Thursday, March 1, 2012

X360 Kinect sensor for Windows

NCIX.com - X360 Kinect sensor for Windows

Reg. Price $237.46 CAD"

'via Blog this'

Microsoft shows off their transparent 3D desktop prototype

Microsoft shows off their transparent 3D desktop prototype:


We think most would agree that the Microsoft Kinect is a miraculous piece of hardware. The affordable availability of a high-quality depth camera was the genesis of a myriad of hacks. And now it seems that type of data is making an intriguing 3D display possible.


What you see above is a 3D monitor concept that Microsoft developed. It starts off looking much like a tablet PC, but the screen can be lifted up toward the user whose arms reach around it to get at the keyboard underneath. There is as depth camera that can see the hands and fingers of the user to allow manipulation of the virtual environment. But that’s only part of the problem. You need some way to align the user’s eyes with what’s on the screen. They seem to have solved that problem too, using another depth camera to track the location of the user’s head. This means that you can lean from one side to the other and the perspective of the virtual 3D desktop will change to preserve the apparent distance of each object.


Don’t miss the show-and-tell video after the break. As long as there’s only one viewer this looks like a perfect non-glasses alternative to current 3D hardware offerings.


[via Reddit]



Filed under: video hacks